In Re: Craig J. Fontenot

Supreme Court of Louisiana
September 19, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: CRAIG J. FONTENOT
No. 2023-B-00759
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Office of Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and
Recommendations (Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
September 19, 2023
Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., dissents and would impose a lesser sanction.
Griffin, J., dissents and would impose a lesser sanction.
JTG
JLW
SJC
WJC
JBM
09/19/2023 "See News Release 040 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2023-B-0759
IN RE: CRAIG J. FONTENOT
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Craig J. Fontenot , an attorney
licensed to practice law in Louisiana.1
FORMAL CHARGES
On November 22, 2017, at approximately 6:49 p.m., officers from the Baton
Rouge Police Department responded to a hit-and-run vehicle crash on LA Highway
73. The victim had followed respondent’s vehicle to his home address and waited
for police to arrive. As detailed in the police report and confirmed through videos
taken by officers, respondent initially lied to the investigating officer about the
accident and the extent of his alcohol consumption.
Approximately two hours after officers had arrived, res pondent volunteered
to give a breath sample. The test result showed that his blood alcohol concentration
was .238%. Respondent was arrested for first offense DWI, hit and run, and failure
to maintain control.
On April 6, 2021, respondent appeared in c ourt with counsel. The charge of
hit-and-run driving was dismissed. On the DWI charge, respondent withdrew his
plea of not guilty and entered a plea of nolo contendre.
1 Respondent’s status with the Louisiana State Bar Association has been inactive since December
2, 2022.

2

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In October 2022, the ODC filed forma l charges against respondent, alleging
that his conduct as set forth above violated the following provisions of the Rules of
Professional Conduct: Rules 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects
adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer) and 8.4(c)
(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).
Respondent failed to answer the formal charges. Accordingly, the factual
allegations contained therein were deemed a dmitted and proven by clear and
convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). No formal
hearing was held, but the parties were given an oppor tunity to file with the hearing
committee written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue of sanctions.
Respondent filed nothing for the committee’s consideration.

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the ODC’s deemed admitted submission, the hearing
committee determined the factual allegations of the form al charges were deemed
admitted, and thus, proven by clear and convincing evidence. Based on those facts,
the committee determined respondent violated Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(c) of the Rules
of Professional Conduct.
The committee then determined respondent violated duties owed to the public
and the legal profession. He acted knowingly and intentionally in committing the
criminal act of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. He was also dishonest when
confronted by law enforcement and misrepresented his actions on the day of his
arrest. His misconduct caused actual harm to the driver of the other vehicle and
potential harm to all others he encountered on the roadways prior to the accident.
Relying on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions , the committee
determined the applicable baseline sanction is suspension.

3

The committee found the following aggravating factors present: a dishonest
or selfish motive, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by
intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, refusal
to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct, substantial experience in the practice
of law (admitted 1996), and illegal conduct. The committee found the absence of a
prior disciplinary record to be the only mitigating factor present.
After further considering the prior jurisprudence of this court, the committee
recommended respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and
one day. The committee also recommended respondent be assessed with all costs
and expenses associated with this proceeding.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s
report. Therefore, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G), the disciplinary
board submitted the committee’s report to the court for review.

DISCUSSION
Bar disciplinary matters fall within the original jurisdiction of this court. La.
Const. art. V, § 5(B) . Consequently, we act as triers of fact and conduct an
independent review of the record to determine whether the alleged misconduct has
been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re: Banks, 09-1212 (La. 10/2/09),
18 So. 3d 57.
In cases in which the lawyer does not answer the formal charges, the factual
allegations of those charges are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule XIX, §
11(E)(3). Thus, the ODC bears no additional burden to prove the factual allegations
contained in the formal charges after those charges have been deemed admitted.
However, the language of § 11(E)(3) does not encompass legal conclusions that flow
from the factual allegations. If the legal conclusion the ODC seeks to prove (i.e., a
violation of a specific rule) is not readily apparent from the deemed admitted facts,

4

additional evidence may need to be submitted in order to prove the legal conclusions
that flow from the admitted factual allegations. In re: Donnan , 01 -3058 (La.
1/10/03), 838 So. 2d 715.
The evidence in the record of this deemed admitted matter supports a finding
that respondent was arrested for first offense DWI, hit and run, and failure to
maintain control. He also lied to the investigating officer about the accident and the
extent of his alcohol consumption. This conduct amounts to a violation of the Rules
of Professional Conduct as charged.
Having found evidence of professional misconduct, we now turn to a
determination of the appropriate sanction for respondent’s ac tions. In determining
a sanction, we are mindful that disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain
high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession,
and deter future misconduct. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Rei s, 513 So. 2d 1173
(La. 1987). The discipline to be imposed depends upon the facts of each case and
the seriousness of the offenses involved considered in light of any aggravating and
mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So. 2d 520
(La. 1984).
The record supports a finding that respondent knowingly and intentionally
violated duties owed to the public and the legal profession. Both actual and potential
harm are present. We agree with the hearing committee that the applicable baseline
sanction is suspension. The record supports the aggravating and mitigating factors
found by the committee.
Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, we find guidance from the
case of In re: Baer, 09-1795 (La. 11/20/09), 21 So. 2d 941. In Baer the court stated
the following with respect to appropriate sanctions for DWI offenses:
We have imposed sanctions ranging from actual periods
of suspension to fully deferred suspensions in prior cases
involving attorneys who drive while under the influence

5

of alcohol. However, as a general rule, we tend to impose
an actual suspension in thos e instances in which multiple
DWI offenses are at issue, as well as in cases in which the
DWI stems from a substance abuse problem that appears
to remain unresolved.

Respondent committed a single DWI offense. However, due to his lack of
cooperation with the disciplinary investigation, we do not know whether he suffers
from a substance abuse problem. An actual suspension is therefore warranted. The
sanction of a one year and one day suspension means respondent will have to file a
formal application for reinstatement in the event he wishes to return to the practice
of law. Prior to being reinstated, respondent will have to address the question of
whether he has a substance abuse disorder, and, if so, show an effort at recovery.
Accordingly, we will adopt the committee’s recommendation and suspend
respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the hearing committee,
and considering the record, it is ordered that Craig J. Fontenot, Louisiana Bar Roll
number 24415, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law for a period
of one year and one day. All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against
respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest
to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.